linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 24 Apr 2015 22:44:43 +0200
From:	Hagen Paul Pfeifer <hagen@...u.net>
To:	Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enforce function inlining for hot functions

On 24 April 2015 at 22:13, Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

Hey Paul,

> Hmmm...  allyesconfig would have PROVE_RCU=y, which would mean that the
> above two would contain lockdep calls that might in some cases defeat
> inlining.  With the more typical production choice of PROVE_RCU=n, I would
> expect these to just be a call instruction, which should get inlined.

I can rebuild and check with PROVE_RCU=n - the question is what is the
reaction to the result? I tend to enforce the inlining anyway for both
rcu functions because nobody is harmed. But wait, the compiler is
already started ... ;-)

Hagen
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/